News:

Are you in the IGI Yearbook?

Main Menu

Un-Reasonable Faith with William Lane Craig

Started by Teaspoon Shallow, July 28, 2022, 11:53:10 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

kevin

#30
Quote from: eyeshaveit on July 31, 2022, 07:51:58 AM
Quote from: kevin on July 29, 2022, 10:45:53 AMi am not an atheist nor do i hate god, eyes. and im not troubled by th prpblem of evil, per se.

I'm not troubled by rodent hairs in my soup ... so what? What does "troubled" mean?

you referred to the problem of evil . "troubled" is what people feel when they must deny god because of it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

QuoteDo you believe that justice is served by a vast and expensive prison system maintained to take freedom away from evil criminals?

no, i don't. are you intending to describe hell?

to return to the original conversation, i do not see sufficient evidence in nature to support the idea that it was actively created.

you apparently do, and offer a version of pauls argument from romans 1:20.

pauls argument is a fallacy, as i said earlier. in order to be convinced that it was yaweh who made the world, there first has to some indication that it was "made" in the first place. paul cites no evidence, and neither do you.

but thats not a problem. youre under no obligations to defend the idea  im just pointing out that i dont see what you see when i look out my window.


dare to know.

Teaspoon Shallow

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on July 30, 2022, 10:39:00 PM
Quote from: Teaspoon Shallow on July 30, 2022, 04:28:54 AMI will clarify what I had stated:
To assert a proposition is true (X is possible") because it has not been demonstrated to be false is fallacious.
To assert a proposition is false (X is possible") because it has not been demonstrated to be true is fallacious.
Being open to the evidence is NOT the same as accepting it is true or false with insufficient evidence.

You however have accept a god is possible though you cannot demonstrate the truth of the proposition.
Why not remain agnostic until belief is warranted?  Would your god reward you for believing for bad reasons?

1. Accepting something is possible is not the same as accepting it's true.  The fallacy doesn't apply. 

2. Your argument doesn't make sense.  I can even use it against you. 

3. You have not demonstrated it's possible to demonstrate the possibility of a living omnipotent god.  Can you?

4. If you don't deem the unknown is possible then there's not much need to ever investigate the unknown. Thinking something unknown is possible is what drives science. 

My numbering for clarification so you can determine which you do not understand. 
 
1. Accepting the claim "X is possible" is accepting the claim (that it is possible).  Accepting the claim "X is impossible" is accepting the claim (that it is impossible)  It is a true dichotomy because possible and possible are direct negations.  
 
If I say X is possible, you have only 2 options.
a) Be convinced it is true.
b) Not be convinced it is true. 
Please note: Not being convinced is NOT the same as asserting it is false.  There are a few people on this forum that do not understand this very simple fact. I am hoping you are not one of them.  This logical structure works exactly the same way if I say X is impossible.
Do you understand this?

2. It may not currently make sense to you but it is rational. Please ask any question that may help your understanding.

3. I have not worked out how to demonstrate a thing that is space less (occupies no space), time less (exists for no time) and a spirit (nebulous).  It seems the descriptions of god provided by some Christian philosophers is incoherent.

4. What drives science is NOT thinking everything is possible. The scientific method relies on methodological naturalism.  It is defined as:
 It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method 

      
 I am open to learning new things and being convinced if a god is even possible.  A sound and valid argument supported by evidence would convince me.  Unfortunately I have never heard an argument of this nature supporting a god. 

If you have any questions, please ask me.  If you do not understand something I am happy to clarify. 

I have asked you only 1 question, I look forward to your thoughts.
"If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would.    That's the difference between me and your God." Tracie Harris

Teaspoon Shallow

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on July 31, 2022, 03:22:17 AMOne should not only explore the simplest explanation. If I am missing a shoe there are a few possibilities:

A.  I might have taken it off in a weird place.
B.  My granddaughter was playing with it.
C.  The dog destroyed it and I no longer have the shoe.
D.  My wife moved it because she didn't like where it was.
E.  It's where it should be and I just didn't see it.
F.  I moved it and forgot that I moved it.

All of these are possible although I can't demonstrate they are possible so I guess no one should believe they are possible.  Right?  Or is it the simplest possibility that's correct?


A.  What known forces (see candidate explanation) could that shoe have been exposed to?
B.  Was your granddaughter in the area?  It would be hard for her to move it if she was in Paris.
C.  Canines have been observed destroying shoes, typically the new ones whilst leaving the old ones alone.
D.  Wives have been observed moving husbands things that were not left in the right spot.
E.  Males of the species have been observed not seeing things right in front of their face.  Especially tools that were only just being used.
F.  Males of the species have also been observed looking aimlessly for things, again, often tools they were just using.

Most of these are easily demonstrated to be candidate explanations because they have been directly observed and are repeatable.  They can be tested and personal biases can be eliminated.   
"If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would.    That's the difference between me and your God." Tracie Harris

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: Teaspoon Shallow on July 31, 2022, 10:11:16 AM
Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on July 30, 2022, 10:39:00 PM
Quote from: Teaspoon Shallow on July 30, 2022, 04:28:54 AMI will clarify what I had stated:
To assert a proposition is true (X is possible") because it has not been demonstrated to be false is fallacious.
To assert a proposition is false (X is possible") because it has not been demonstrated to be true is fallacious.
Being open to the evidence is NOT the same as accepting it is true or false with insufficient evidence.

You however have accept a god is possible though you cannot demonstrate the truth of the proposition.
Why not remain agnostic until belief is warranted?  Would your god reward you for believing for bad reasons?

1. Accepting something is possible is not the same as accepting it's true.  The fallacy doesn't apply. 

2. Your argument doesn't make sense.  I can even use it against you. 

3. You have not demonstrated it's possible to demonstrate the possibility of a living omnipotent god.  Can you?

4. If you don't deem the unknown is possible then there's not much need to ever investigate the unknown. Thinking something unknown is possible is what drives science. 

My numbering for clarification so you can determine which you do not understand.
 
1. Accepting the claim "X is possible" is accepting the claim (that it is possible).  Accepting the claim "X is impossible" is accepting the claim (that it is impossible)  It is a true dichotomy because possible and possible are direct negations. 
 
If I say X is possible, you have only 2 options.
a) Be convinced it is true.
b) Not be convinced it is true. 
Please note: Not being convinced is NOT the same as asserting it is false.  There are a few people on this forum that do not understand this very simple fact. I am hoping you are not one of them.  This logical structure works exactly the same way if I say X is impossible.
Do you understand this?

2. It may not currently make sense to you but it is rational. Please ask any question that may help your understanding.

3. I have not worked out how to demonstrate a thing that is space less (occupies no space), time less (exists for no time) and a spirit (nebulous).  It seems the descriptions of god provided by some Christian philosophers is incoherent.

4. What drives science is NOT thinking everything is possible. The scientific method relies on methodological naturalism.  It is defined as:
 It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

     
 I am open to learning new things and being convinced if a god is even possible.  A sound and valid argument supported by evidence would convince me.  Unfortunately I have never heard an argument of this nature supporting a god.

If you have any questions, please ask me.  If you do not understand something I am happy to clarify.

I have asked you only 1 question, I look forward to your thoughts.
If you are testing a hypothesis then you have already deemed it possible.  This is demonstrated by your actions.  Why would anyone test for something that's not possible?

QuoteIf I say X is possible, you have only 2 options.
a) Be convinced it is true.
b) Not be convinced it is true.
Please note: Not being convinced is NOT the same as asserting it is false.  There are a few people on this forum that do not understand this very simple fact. I am hoping you are not one of them.  This logical structure works exactly the same way if I say X is impossible.
Do you understand this?


No, I don't.  If you don't think it's possible (potentially true) then you are only left with impossible.  By choosing "a" you remain undecided.  If you choose "b" then you have decided.
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

eyeshaveit

Quote from: kevin on July 31, 2022, 10:01:13 AMno, i don't. are you intending to describe hell?

but thats not a problem. youre under no obligations to defend the idea  im just pointing out that i dont see what you see when i look out my window.

Not Hell, but Hell on Earth.

My view in hospice is at first glance bleak: a parking lot, railroad tracks, commercial buildings, etc., yet I easily see creation in dozens and hundreds of ways. LOL -- am I deluded or are you blinded by fantasy? 
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

kevin

#35
unless you are willing to share a reasonable explanation of how any of what you can see confirms a divine "creation," my opinion is that you are deluded.


i know what you believe, eyes. i'm just curious about the reasoning you use to confirm it.
dare to know.

kevin

Quote from: Teaspoon Shallow on July 31, 2022, 10:32:26 AMF.  Males of the species have also been observed looking aimlessly for things, again, often tools they were just using.


you have been spying on me
dare to know.

eyeshaveit

Quote from: kevin on August 01, 2022, 12:32:35 PMunless you are willing to share a reasonable explanation of how any of what you can see confirms a divine "creation," my opinion is that you are deluded.

Reasonable, eh? What is "reasonable"? Almost 2,000 years scratched off the Christian calendar and thousands, if not millions, of folks much like yourself have not found a reasonable answer. They bicker and carp on the authority of God and the Bible while they themselves offer nothing of substance except cheap imitations and/or fake substitutes 
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

kevin

#38
Quote from: eyeshaveit on August 01, 2022, 05:01:52 PM
Quote from: kevin on August 01, 2022, 12:32:35 PMunless you are willing to share a reasonable explanation of how any of what you can see confirms a divine "creation," my opinion is that you are deluded.

Reasonable, eh? What is "reasonable"? Almost 2,000 years scratched off the Christian calendar and thousands, if not millions, of folks much like yourself have not found a reasonable answer. They bicker and carp on the authority of God and the Bible while they themselves offer nothing of substance except cheap imitations and/or fake substitutes 


well, eyes, you are either unable or unwilling to provide any answer to the question. i believe i have asked three, if not four times, and each time you have responded with deflections or non-answers. but that's fine. as i said before, youre under no obligations to defend the idea.

but you are quite incorrect about "folks much like myself" not having found a reasonable answer other than jewish mythology. i don't bicker and carp on your god or your scripture at all, because i don't find the answers there significantly different from any mythology anywhere else. to see active creation in the universe requires that you believe in its active creation first. if you do not bring that bias to the conversation, then creation is not something that is supported by what you see out the window.

but it is clear from your increasingly personal and dismissive tone that you are becoming irritated at the conversation, so i will leave you to your own thoughts in the matter. your lack of any answer to the question is more or less what i expected.

peace.
dare to know.

Kiahanie

#39
Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on July 31, 2022, 11:14:12 PM••••
If you are testing a hypothesis then you have already deemed it possible.  This is demonstrated by your actions.  Why would anyone test for something that's not possible?
••••

A hypothesis is a hypothesis only If it is testable. If not testable then it is speculation or conjecture. That (speculation, conjecture) is the current state of quantum gravity research: it has not for to testable propositions that would differentiate QG from the Standard Model. That is true of most exploration in the exotic areas of science.

Science all the time tests things to see whether a projection (a hypothetical result) is possible.

There are three (not 2) potential responses to an assertion of posdibility:
(1) possible
(2) not possible
(3) possibility unknown.

Asserting (3) implies neither (1) nor (2). That is why we test.

"If there were a little more silence, if we all kept quiet ... maybe we could understand something." --Federico Fellini....."Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation" -Jellaludin Rumi,

eyeshaveit

Quote from: kevin on August 01, 2022, 05:35:13 PMbut it is clear from your increasingly personal and dismissive tone that you are becoming irritated at the conversation, so i will leave you to your own thoughts in the matter. your lack of any answer to the question is more or less what i expected.

OK Kevin, If I see you in the sandbox, I'll go on the monkey bars or on the swings and not bother you further.
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: Kiahanie on August 01, 2022, 05:54:11 PM
Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on July 31, 2022, 11:14:12 PM••••
If you are testing a hypothesis then you have already deemed it possible.  This is demonstrated by your actions.  Why would anyone test for something that's not possible?
••••

A hypothesis is a hypothesis only If it is testable. If not testable then it is speculation or conjecture. That (speculation, conjecture) is the current state of quantum gravity research: it has not for to testable propositions that would differentiate QG from the Standard Model. That is true of most exploration in the exotic areas of science.

Science all the time tests things to see whether a projection (a hypothetical result) is possible.

There are three (not 2) potential responses to an assertion of posdibility:
(1) possible
(2) not possible
(3) possibility unknown.

Asserting (3) implies neither (1) nor (2). That is why we test.


Okay, this makes sense.  I have been using 1 as a substitute for 3.  Possible=maybe true and maybe false=unknown.  It still only seems like a semantic difference.  Surely those researching quantum gravity consider it a possibility.
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

Teaspoon Shallow

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on July 31, 2022, 11:14:12 PM
QuoteIf I say X is possible, you have only 2 options.
a) Be convinced it is true.
b) Not be convinced it is true.
Please note: Not being convinced is NOT the same as asserting it is false.  There are a few people on this forum that do not understand this very simple fact. I am hoping you are not one of them.  This logical structure works exactly the same way if I say X is impossible.
Do you understand this?


No, I don't.  If you don't think it's possible (potentially true) then you are only left with impossible.  By choosing "a" you remain undecided.  If you choose "b" then you have decided.
OK, I understand what you are saying and I will correct your misunderstanding. 

I have used this analogy previously.  I literally have a woven basket on my kitchen shelf (wife prefers that container and location) where we put in coins for our children to use when ever they need if they have run out of cash.
I have not counted the coins.
If I propose the physical number of coins in this basket is an odd number do you:
a) Believe it does in fact total an odd number?
b) Believe it does in fact total an even number?
c) Remain undecided because you have insufficient evidence to form a reasonable conclusion?  

If you choose anything other than c) I would love to hear how you know it to be the case.

Why do humans investigate to see if reality matches our concepts?  Because we thirst for knowledge.

Unfortunately we are prone to suffering from personal biases and irrationality and we tend to form conclusions that are invalid or unsound due to lacking a reliable methodology.  

If we wanted to design a test to see if "X" is possible or impossible, should we assume the conclusion prior to forming and running the experiments and analysing the results? - Absolutely not!

When I asked if you or any theist can demonstrate that god is even possible, why do you think there is never a reasonable answer? 

If god cannot be demonstrated to be possible, using the god concept as candidate explanation for anything is fallacious reasoning. 


"If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would.    That's the difference between me and your God." Tracie Harris

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: Teaspoon Shallow on August 06, 2022, 12:13:45 AM
Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on July 31, 2022, 11:14:12 PM
QuoteIf I say X is possible, you have only 2 options.
a) Be convinced it is true.
b) Not be convinced it is true.
Please note: Not being convinced is NOT the same as asserting it is false.  There are a few people on this forum that do not understand this very simple fact. I am hoping you are not one of them.  This logical structure works exactly the same way if I say X is impossible.
Do you understand this?


No, I don't.  If you don't think it's possible (potentially true) then you are only left with impossible.  By choosing "a" you remain undecided.  If you choose "b" then you have decided.
OK, I understand what you are saying and I will correct your misunderstanding.

I have used this analogy previously.  I literally have a woven basket on my kitchen shelf (wife prefers that container and location) where we put in coins for our children to use when ever they need if they have run out of cash.
I have not counted the coins.
If I propose the physical number of coins in this basket is an odd number do you:
a) Believe it does in fact total an odd number?
b) Believe it does in fact total an even number?
c) Remain undecided because you have insufficient evidence to form a reasonable conclusion? 

If you choose anything other than c) I would love to hear how you know it to be the case.

Why do humans investigate to see if reality matches our concepts?  Because we thirst for knowledge.

Unfortunately we are prone to suffering from personal biases and irrationality and we tend to form conclusions that are invalid or unsound due to lacking a reliable methodology. 

If we wanted to design a test to see if "X" is possible or impossible, should we assume the conclusion prior to forming and running the experiments and analysing the results? - Absolutely not!

When I asked if you or any theist can demonstrate that god is even possible, why do you think there is never a reasonable answer?

If god cannot be demonstrated to be possible, using the god concept as candidate explanation for anything is fallacious reasoning.



I don't think the analogy is a good one because you are asking whether your assertion is true rather than possible.  I don't know if it's true but it's possible.  

If you are testing if something is possible then there must be a way to prove it's impossible.  It must be falsifiable.  Is it possible to demonstrate the existence of a being such as God?  I don't know how.  I assert only God can demonstrate his existence. 
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

Kiahanie

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on August 05, 2022, 11:08:13 PM
Quote from: Kiahanie on August 01, 2022, 05:54:11 PM
Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on July 31, 2022, 11:14:12 PM••••
If you are testing a hypothesis then you have already deemed it possible.  This is demonstrated by your actions.  Why would anyone test for something that's not possible?
••••

A hypothesis is a hypothesis only If it is testable. If not testable then it is speculation or conjecture. That (speculation, conjecture) is the current state of quantum gravity research: it has not for to testable propositions that would differentiate QG from the Standard Model. That is true of most exploration in the exotic areas of science.

Science all the time tests things to see whether a projection (a hypothetical result) is possible.

There are three (not 2) potential responses to an assertion of posdibility:
(1) possible
(2) not possible
(3) possibility unknown.

Asserting (3) implies neither (1) nor (2). That is why we test.


Okay, this makes sense.  I have been using 1 as a substitute for 3.  Possible=maybe true and maybe false=unknown.  It still only seems like a semantic difference.  Surely those researching quantum gravity consider it a possibility.

"Quantum gravity" is merely the study of interactions between gravity and the quantum world. We know there is a relationship, we do not know what that relationship is, and have no clear idea of what relations are even possible. So we test: a good "no" is as helpful as a good "yes".

Just like with Mercury's precession and Galileo's cannonballs.
"If there were a little more silence, if we all kept quiet ... maybe we could understand something." --Federico Fellini....."Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation" -Jellaludin Rumi,

Kiahanie

#45
Quote from: eyeshaveit on August 01, 2022, 05:01:52 PM
Quote from: kevin on August 01, 2022, 12:32:35 PMunless you are willing to share a reasonable explanation of how any of what you can see confirms a divine "creation," my opinion is that you are deluded.

Reasonable, eh? What is "reasonable"? Almost 2,000 years scratched off the Christian calendar and thousands, if not millions, of folks much like yourself have not found a reasonable answer. They bicker and carp on the authority of God and the Bible while they themselves offer nothing of substance except cheap imitations and/or fake substitutes 

It is perfectly "reasonable" to think there was no "creation," no divine process, just a process like any other material process.

I regard "reasonable" as sensible (accessible to the senses) and with due regard to cause and effect.

In your case, if you have experience with your god, your beliefs are reasonable. I know people who make similar claims on the basis of experience with their gods. It is not reasonable for "inexperienced" people to accept your explanation.

I do not have that experience. Nothing in my experience validates the idea of a Creation by a Creator. What I see instead is without beginning or end. My experience validates that.
"If there were a little more silence, if we all kept quiet ... maybe we could understand something." --Federico Fellini....."Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation" -Jellaludin Rumi,

Teaspoon Shallow

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on August 06, 2022, 03:48:54 PMI don't think the analogy is a good one because you are asking whether your assertion is true rather than possible.  I don't know if it's true but it's possible. 

If you are testing if something is possible then there must be a way to prove it's impossible.  It must be falsifiable.  Is it possible to demonstrate the existence of a being such as God?  I don't know how.  I assert only God can demonstrate his existence.

You are claiming the statement "X" is true.  "X" being "god is possible".
You are employing faulty reasoning. Specifically the argument from ignorance.
Claiming god is possible with insufficient evidence.
If I use your same reasoning but argue the antithesis, the reasoning remains the same but the conclusion must be opposite if you are going to remain consistent.

I will put the concept that god is impossible into the same structured claim as the coins.

I have learnt a lot about different god concepts people throughout history have believed in at one time or another.
I have now way of demonstrating any of them are impossible.

If I propose gods existence is impossible do you:
a) Believe the claim is TRUE?
b) Believe the claim is FALSE?
c) Remain undecided because you have insufficient evidence to form a reasonable conclusion? 

If you choose anything other than c) I would love to hear how you know it to be the case.

Currently we have no way of detecting the supernatural, to claim you know some properties about the unknown is absurd. The supernatural may in fact be nothing more than a human invention that has no referent in reality. Without the actual referent, claiming it is or is not possible is fallacious and should be avoided if truth is something important to you.

Your assertion that only God can demonstrate his existence begs the question and remains a demonstration of faulty reasoning.  You are currently convinced of something that I too was convinced of, that God exists. Why did I change my belief? Because I could not rationally justify my belief and the truth is important to me.  

Is truth important to you?
"If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would.    That's the difference between me and your God." Tracie Harris

Shnozzola

^^^    One thing about our resident theists here, they never give up. And frankly - Fran, Jst, Eyes, et al, seem like very good people. And that matters.  While we atheists are most interested in truth, regardless where it leads, these folks seem most interested in salvation, and where it leads. Even Fran just said what many theologians pretty much say – without the resurrection, Christianity means nothing. I so much disagree with that, but to each his own.
Ironically, the myriad  of "god" beliefs of humanity are proving to be more dangerous than us learning that we are on our own, making the way we treat each other far more important

8livesleft

#48
Quote from: Shnozzola on August 06, 2022, 11:27:51 PM^^^    One thing about our resident theists here, they never give up. And frankly - Fran, Jst, Eyes, et al, seem like very good people. And that matters.  While we atheists are most interested in truth, regardless where it leads, these folks seem most interested in salvation, and where it leads. Even Fran just said what many theologians pretty much say – without the resurrection, Christianity means nothing. I so much disagree with that, but to each his own.

That's his take on what makes christianity meaningful. Personally, as an ex-christian, it was his thinking and attitude that I found more resonant because those are examples of how to deal with and treat others in many different situations.

But, I guess that's what's great about having a book that's impossible to verify. You can pick and choose anything that resonates and nobody can tell you otherwise.

Kiahanie

What I find sad is the desperation that comes from knowing that if that one incredible fact is in fact non-factual, then all meaning is lost and they plunge into a fathomless abyss.
"If there were a little more silence, if we all kept quiet ... maybe we could understand something." --Federico Fellini....."Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation" -Jellaludin Rumi,

8livesleft

#50
Quote from: Kiahanie on August 07, 2022, 01:34:05 AMWhat I find sad is the desperation that comes from knowing that if that one incredible fact is in fact non-factual, then all meaning is lost and they plunge into a fathomless abyss.

Yup. It is sad. But it happens to everyone at one point or another. We work for decades at a career that suddenly becomes obsolete due to computers or find out a spouse had been lying to us since the start etc...and it shatters our reality.

But fortunately not all of it.

Living itself creates possibilities and can open our eyes to great things around us that we may not have been aware of because we've been so focused on just a small part that just so happened to work for us.

And so meaning can be destroyed but it can also be recreated so long as you're willing to climb out of your own abyss.

kevin

if the existence and relevance of god is so fragile that discovering one aspect of human-derived christian doctrine to be false can destroy it all,


then it wasnt there in the first place.
dare to know.

8livesleft

#52
Quote from: kevin on August 07, 2022, 02:00:46 AMif the existence and relevance of god is so fragile that discovering one aspect of human-derived christian doctrine to be false can destroy it all,


then it wasnt there in the first place.

This is what I was basically saying on another thread...

Reality isn't so fragile...

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: Teaspoon Shallow on August 06, 2022, 10:41:25 PM
Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on August 06, 2022, 03:48:54 PMI don't think the analogy is a good one because you are asking whether your assertion is true rather than possible.  I don't know if it's true but it's possible. 

If you are testing if something is possible then there must be a way to prove it's impossible.  It must be falsifiable.  Is it possible to demonstrate the existence of a being such as God?  I don't know how.  I assert only God can demonstrate his existence.

You are claiming the statement "X" is true.  "X" being "god is possible".
You are employing faulty reasoning. Specifically the argument from ignorance.
Claiming god is possible with insufficient evidence.
If I use your same reasoning but argue the antithesis, the reasoning remains the same but the conclusion must be opposite if you are going to remain consistent.

I will put the concept that god is impossible into the same structured claim as the coins.

I have learnt a lot about different god concepts people throughout history have believed in at one time or another.
I have now way of demonstrating any of them are impossible.

If I propose gods existence is impossible do you:
a) Believe the claim is TRUE?
b) Believe the claim is FALSE?
c) Remain undecided because you have insufficient evidence to form a reasonable conclusion? 

If you choose anything other than c) I would love to hear how you know it to be the case.

Currently we have no way of detecting the supernatural, to claim you know some properties about the unknown is absurd. The supernatural may in fact be nothing more than a human invention that has no referent in reality. Without the actual referent, claiming it is or is not possible is fallacious and should be avoided if truth is something important to you.

Your assertion that only God can demonstrate his existence begs the question and remains a demonstration of faulty reasoning.  You are currently convinced of something that I too was convinced of, that God exists. Why did I change my belief? Because I could not rationally justify my belief and the truth is important to me. 

Is truth important to you?

Yes, I see what you're saying but to me a=c.  Possible=maybe or maybe not.  Impossible=definately not.  What does possible mean to you?

It is not faulty reasoning to assert that the only way to detect Jehovah would be for him to reveal himself just like the only way a sea creature can detect a human is for a human to go to the sea because they cannot go to humans.  Likewise, the only way for humans to detect Jehovah would be for him (if possible) to come to humans because humans cannot go to God.  We are stuck in the sea (the universe).

Truth is important to me.  In my experience and according to my perception God is very real and detectable to those that have been trained by the Bible and who do what it is says.  So, it would be dishonest of me to say otherwise or claim ignorance.

To me, you are showing ignorance and arrogance.  It's as if you think God would be subject to humans and we can dictate the terms of any relationship.  I agree that no god like that exists.
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

8livesleft

#54
QuoteIt's as if you think God would be subject to humans and we can dictate the terms of any relationship. 


Isn't that what everyone does?

We're talking about a deity that cannot be detected by regular human perception or any available tool from science.

The only way is through alleged subjective experience based on the individual's own standard.


When these individuals say they interact, they're doing it on their own specific terms which they and only they can say is valid.

Is that not more arrogant?.

Teaspoon Shallow

Jst: Yes, I see what you're saying but to me a=c.  Possible=maybe or maybe not.  Impossible=definately not.  What does possible mean to you?

TS: Possible denotes that a thing may certainly exist or occur given specific conditions.
a) and c) cannot be equal as they are mutually exclusive propositions. a) is a state of being convinced and c) is the state of being unconvinced.
What do you not understand about the Venn Diagram I developed?


Jst: It is not faulty reasoning to assert that the only way to detect Jehovah would be for him to reveal himself just like the only way a sea creature can detect a human is for a human to go to the sea because they cannot go to humans.  Likewise, the only way for humans to detect Jehovah would be for him (if possible) to come to humans because humans cannot go to God.  We are stuck in the sea (the universe).

TS: This is begging the question; you are assuming the very thing that is in question.  You have not established Jehovah is even possible so claiming it can do anything is meaningless conjecture at this stage.  Once Jehovah has been demonstrated to be possible, then we can discuss its potential properties if you are willing.  


Jst: Truth is important to me.  In my experience and according to my perception God is very real and detectable to those that have been trained by the Bible and who do what it is says.  So, it would be dishonest of me to say otherwise or claim ignorance.

TS: How is it possible to perceive the supernatural Jst?  Let's make this simple, if you experience a phenomenon, how can you verify it is from a supernatural source?  If you have no mechanism to do so, appealing to this sense is un-reasonable and not a reliable pathway to truth that we both value. 


Jst: To me, you are showing ignorance and arrogance.  It's as if you think God would be subject to humans and we can dictate the terms of any relationship.  I agree that no god like that exists.

TS: I have no expectations of things that have no discernible properties and are indistinguishable from a fabrication of human minds.  If you want to label someone genuinely seeking and admitting to not knowing as arrogant, you are welcome to your opinions, but they are a distraction to a meaningful conversation.
"If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would.    That's the difference between me and your God." Tracie Harris

maritime

QuoteI have not counted the coins.
If I propose the physical number of coins in this basket is an odd number do you:
a) Believe it does in fact total an odd number?
b) Believe it does in fact total an even number?
c) Remain undecided because you have insufficient evidence to form a reasonable conclusion?

A basket with coins. Odd or even amount. You propose odd. Do I or you believe you? You have not counted the coins. Remain undecided unless or until coins are counted.

A body with an inhabitant or no inhabitant. I propose inhabitant. Do you or I believe me?
Physical existence. Is there a cost to count. Don't know till you count.
a) Believe there is a cost to count.
b) Believe there is not a cost to count.
c) Remain undecided.

maritime

#57
Kiahanie
QuoteNothing in my experience validates the idea of a Creation by a Creator. What I see instead is without beginning or end. My experience validates that.

A bit short sighted wouldn't you say, your experience that is.

Kiahanie

Quote from: maritime on August 08, 2022, 04:49:55 AMKiahanie
QuoteNothing in my experience validates the idea of a Creation by a Creator. What I see instead is without beginning or end. My experience validates that.

A bit short sighted wouldn't you say, your experience that is.

A natural limitation of being human. Some have mytholigized it as "original sin."
"If there were a little more silence, if we all kept quiet ... maybe we could understand something." --Federico Fellini....."Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation" -Jellaludin Rumi,

Jstwebbrowsing

#59
Quote from: Teaspoon Shallow on August 07, 2022, 10:19:05 AMJst: Yes, I see what you're saying but to me a=c.  Possible=maybe or maybe not.  Impossible=definately not.  What does possible mean to you?

TS: Possible denotes that a thing may certainly exist or occur given specific conditions.
a) and c) cannot be equal as they are mutually exclusive propositions. a) is a state of being convinced and c) is the state of being unconvinced.
What do you not understand about the Venn Diagram I developed?


Jst: It is not faulty reasoning to assert that the only way to detect Jehovah would be for him to reveal himself just like the only way a sea creature can detect a human is for a human to go to the sea because they cannot go to humans.  Likewise, the only way for humans to detect Jehovah would be for him (if possible) to come to humans because humans cannot go to God.  We are stuck in the sea (the universe).

TS: This is begging the question; you are assuming the very thing that is in question.  You have not established Jehovah is even possible so claiming it can do anything is meaningless conjecture at this stage.  Once Jehovah has been demonstrated to be possible, then we can discuss its potential properties if you are willing. 


Jst: Truth is important to me.  In my experience and according to my perception God is very real and detectable to those that have been trained by the Bible and who do what it is says.  So, it would be dishonest of me to say otherwise or claim ignorance.

TS: How is it possible to perceive the supernatural Jst?  Let's make this simple, if you experience a phenomenon, how can you verify it is from a supernatural source?  If you have no mechanism to do so, appealing to this sense is un-reasonable and not a reliable pathway to truth that we both value. 


Jst: To me, you are showing ignorance and arrogance.  It's as if you think God would be subject to humans and we can dictate the terms of any relationship.  I agree that no god like that exists.

TS: I have no expectations of things that have no discernible properties and are indistinguishable from a fabrication of human minds.  If you want to label someone genuinely seeking and admitting to not knowing as arrogant, you are welcome to your opinions, but they are a distraction to a meaningful conversation.
Quote from: Teaspoon Shallow on August 07, 2022, 10:19:05 AMJst: Yes, I see what you're saying but to me a=c.  Possible=maybe or maybe not.  Impossible=definately not.  What does possible mean to you?

TS: Possible denotes that a thing may certainly exist or occur given specific conditions.
a) and c) cannot be equal as they are mutually exclusive propositions. a) is a state of being convinced and c) is the state of being unconvinced.
What do you not understand about the Venn Diagram I developed?


Jst: It is not faulty reasoning to assert that the only way to detect Jehovah would be for him to reveal himself just like the only way a sea creature can detect a human is for a human to go to the sea because they cannot go to humans.  Likewise, the only way for humans to detect Jehovah would be for him (if possible) to come to humans because humans cannot go to God.  We are stuck in the sea (the universe).

TS: This is begging the question; you are assuming the very thing that is in question.  You have not established Jehovah is even possible so claiming it can do anything is meaningless conjecture at this stage.  Once Jehovah has been demonstrated to be possible, then we can discuss its potential properties if you are willing. 


Jst: Truth is important to me.  In my experience and according to my perception God is very real and detectable to those that have been trained by the Bible and who do what it is says.  So, it would be dishonest of me to say otherwise or claim ignorance.

TS: How is it possible to perceive the supernatural Jst?  Let's make this simple, if you experience a phenomenon, how can you verify it is from a supernatural source?  If you have no mechanism to do so, appealing to this sense is un-reasonable and not a reliable pathway to truth that we both value. 


Jst: To me, you are showing ignorance and arrogance.  It's as if you think God would be subject to humans and we can dictate the terms of any relationship.  I agree that no god like that exists.

TS: I have no expectations of things that have no discernible properties and are indistinguishable from a fabrication of human minds.  If you want to label someone genuinely seeking and admitting to not knowing as arrogant, you are welcome to your opinions, but they are a distraction to a meaningful conversation.
Quote from: Teaspoon Shallow on August 07, 2022, 10:19:05 AMJst: Yes, I see what you're saying but to me a=c.  Possible=maybe or maybe not.  Impossible=definately not.  What does possible mean to you?

TS: Possible denotes that a thing may certainly exist or occur given specific conditions.
a) and c) cannot be equal as they are mutually exclusive propositions. a) is a state of being convinced and c) is the state of being unconvinced.
What do you not understand about the Venn Diagram I developed?


Jst: It is not faulty reasoning to assert that the only way to detect Jehovah would be for him to reveal himself just like the only way a sea creature can detect a human is for a human to go to the sea because they cannot go to humans.  Likewise, the only way for humans to detect Jehovah would be for him (if possible) to come to humans because humans cannot go to God.  We are stuck in the sea (the universe).

TS: This is begging the question; you are assuming the very thing that is in question.  You have not established Jehovah is even possible so claiming it can do anything is meaningless conjecture at this stage.  Once Jehovah has been demonstrated to be possible, then we can discuss its potential properties if you are willing. 


Jst: Truth is important to me.  In my experience and according to my perception God is very real and detectable to those that have been trained by the Bible and who do what it is says.  So, it would be dishonest of me to say otherwise or claim ignorance.

TS: How is it possible to perceive the supernatural Jst?  Let's make this simple, if you experience a phenomenon, how can you verify it is from a supernatural source?  If you have no mechanism to do so, appealing to this sense is un-reasonable and not a reliable pathway to truth that we both value. 


Jst: To me, you are showing ignorance and arrogance.  It's as if you think God would be subject to humans and we can dictate the terms of any relationship.  I agree that no god like that exists.

TS: I have no expectations of things that have no discernible properties and are indistinguishable from a fabrication of human minds.  If you want to label someone genuinely seeking and admitting to not knowing as arrogant, you are welcome to your opinions, but they are a distraction to a meaningful conversation.
No, a does not equal c.  I see what you're saying.

Concerning the other part,  you've asked me to demonstrate God is possible.  I've already said I can't, just like I can't for many other things that exist.

I can see how I would be begging the question to an unbeliever.  But I am not asking you to believe, and I'm not interested in arguing you into belief.  As I said, the only way we could know of such a being would be for it to approach us.  Yes, that's assuming it exists.  If it doesn't then it certainly won't.  That was assumed too.  If it does, then it may or may not reveal itself and it certainly could hide from us.
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12